Background and context

CIFOR was established as a ‘center without walls’ soon after the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro when the world was greatly concerned with massive destruction of tropical forests. CIFOR has benefited from the post-Rio development of international policies, conventions, and processes such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF)³, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and adoption of a more conservation-oriented forest policy by the World Bank.

The initial vision of the sustainable use of tropical forests as a way to preserve them has gradually shifted towards one of using forests sustainably as a way to reduce poverty and improve rural people’s health and well-being. Today, CIFOR is the only pro-poor policy oriented forest research institute in the world with a fully independent and global mandate that focuses primarily on International Public Goods (IPG).

The need for effective and influential research and communication about sustainable management of forest and other natural resources with a strong pro-poor approach is beyond measure. Hundreds of millions of people rely on forests for their survival. CIFOR is considered to be the leading international forest research center within its mandate and is highly appreciated for its credible and relevant high-quality research. CIFOR is also considered to be a lead CGIAR Center in terms of communication strategies and effective outreach activities.

CIFOR’s research has contributed to the development of key international agreements, policies and practices related to forests at global, regional, national, and local levels. CIFOR is one of the 15 Centers within the CGIAR System, which gives it credibility and greater access to funding and influence. Many multilateral as well as bilateral donors fund CIFOR’s work (see Annex 10). About half CIFOR’s revenue is restricted funding. Ten donors provide some 70% of all funding.

From its inception CIFOR focused on policy issues to enable more ‘informed, productive, sustainable and equitable decisions about the management and use of forests.’ This policy focus demands strategies, research activities, partners, and measures of success that are different than those of many other CGIAR Centers that are primarily concerned with onfarm research for improving livestock and crop production. The Science Council and CGIAR have not always adequately recognized these differences.

Given the nature and long-term focus of its research, the ways in which its results are likely to find application if successful, the complex interactions between forest and people, the multitude of organizations and agencies involved, and the dynamic and political nature of international forestry it is especially difficult for CIFOR to measure impact directly. CIFOR collaborates well with the other CGIAR Centers. It has had the longest and closest collaboration with ICRAF including joint research projects where their mandates overlap. There has been a noticeable increase in collaboration between CIFOR and ICRAF over the last few years due to CIFOR’s increasing focus on Africa and a greater appreciation of the complementarity of the two Centers’ research agendas.

CIFOR has been very successful in building productive partnerships with a broad range of institutional partners, including national forest and natural resource research centers, NGOs, universities and the Private Sector, international, regional and sub-regional organizations, bilateral and multilateral agencies and advanced research institutions. These partnerships have contributed significantly to CIFOR’s ability to mobilize research funding and complementary scientific expertise, and to enhance its scientific quality, output of International Public Goods, impact, and capacity to inform decision-making processes. CIFOR has been particularly successful in its partnerships aimed at informing and influencing global forest policy actors.

However, reflecting the relative weakness of developing countries’ forest research institutions, many of CIFOR’s partnerships are with individual scientists who may not be in forest research institutions, but in universities, national NGOs, and projects. Through collaborative research with CIFOR, both individual scientists and institutions become part of larger research networks and share in the dissemination of its results. While CIFOR’s partnerships have resulted in significant capacity building of individual scientists, building institutional capacity in partner organizations continues to be a challenge.

Major findings

CIFOR's strategy, priorities, and research quality and relevance

1. The Panel finds that CIFOR has made significant progress in making poverty alleviation a central focus in its Programmes. [Section 5.1]
2. The Panel finds that activities currently in CIFOR’s research portfolio are highly relevant to its mission and within the boundaries of its strategic objectives. [5.2.2]
3. The Panel finds that the regrouping of CIFOR’s research activities to three Programmes that are better aligned with its mission and with the CGIAR Priority Areas is an improvement. [4.1.2, 4.2.1, and 4.3]
4. Overall, the Panel finds that CIFOR’s portfolio includes an appropriate mix of policy relevant natural and social science research. [5.2.1]
5. The Panel finds CIFOR’s communication strategy to be very successful and could serve as a model for other CGIAR Centers. [4.2.4]
6. The Panel finds that while CIFOR’s Programmes are working with women in some project activities, CIFOR does not conduct sufficient amount of research that is specifically focused on the impact of forest policy and management on poor women. [5.1.4]
7. The Panel finds that CIFOR conducts its research through appropriate partnerships and that there are no indications of moving into niches where there are competitive suppliers. [5.2.2]
8. The Panel finds that CIFOR’s niche relative to the NARS and the NGOs is clear – complementing their work, encouraging research, building networks, and disseminating results. [3.2.2]
9. The Panel finds that there is increasing collaboration between CIFOR and ICRAF that attempts to capture the comparative advantages of the respective Centers to create important synergies. As long as the collaboration and the capture of synergies continue, and duplication of work is avoided, the Panel finds no reasons for a merger of the two Centers. [3.2.3]
10. The Panel finds that CIFOR’s past research activities in Indonesia represented an appropriate share of its total portfolio. The Panel also finds that given its global mandate and ongoing regionalization, CIFOR’s anticipated reduction in research activities in Indonesia is justified. Further, the Panel finds that CIFOR generally maintains good cooperation with the Indonesian government, NARS and NGOs. [3.2.4]

The effectiveness and efficiency of management, including the mechanisms and processes for ensuringquality

11. The Panel finds CIFOR’s management processes to be in general, logical, thorough, appropriate to the programmatic and business needs, inclusive, flexible and adaptive, and transparent. The Panel also finds the importance CIFOR management has given to measures aimed at ensuring the quality and integrity of corporate services to be justified, appropriate, and prudent. [6.3.6 and 6.3.7]
12. The Panel finds CIFOR’s method of organizing and presenting Board materials for its annual meeting a model of clarity and efficiency, which could serve as an example of best practice. The panel also finds CIFOR’s BOT to exemplify the expression “highperforming board”. [6.1.2]
13. The Panel finds that the financial affairs of CIFOR are managed prudently and its financial position and condition are relatively strong. [6.2]
14. The Panel finds that CIFOR’s organizational culture is suitable to its mission. [6.5]
15. The Panel finds that CIFOR lacks formal policies, systems, and procedures for the'organization and retention of correspondence, institutional documentation, and materials routinely created internally or received from other sources. [6.3.5]
16. The Panel finds that capacity building activities are not adequately represented in the CIFOR’s Medium-Term Plan as explicit outputs or outcomes for its projects. [5.3]

Regionalization

17. The Panel finds the regionalization process a positive step towards linking Projects and Programmes to CIFOR’s mission and objectives and supporting the CGIAR strategy. However, the Panel also finds that the successful implementation may be problematical because of unclear objectives and insufficient resources. [4.2.2.3]
18. The Panel finds the increased commitment to Africa and to expand its work in dry forests and woodlands is appropriate. [4.2.2.1]

The accomplishments and impact of the Center’s research and related activities

19. The Panel finds ample evidence that CIFOR’s research and policy-oriented outputsand outcomes are significant and in many cases outstanding, and have in someinstances had impact on the formulation of policies and practices. [5.2.4]
20. The Panel finds that CIFOR’s strategy to focus on indicators that reflect its influenceand indirect impact rather than direct impact is reasonable, given the nature andlong-term focus of its research, the complex interactions between forest and people,the multitude of organizations and agencies involved, and the dynamic and politicalnature of international forestry. [4.2.5]

Major recommendations

CIFOR's strategy and priorities

1. The Panel strongly recommends that, after the new Director General is in place, aCIFOR strategy be developed through a consultative and participatory process thatbuilds on its current strengths and brings staff and management together with keystakeholders to agree on a shared vision, mission, values and strategic goals. [4.2]
2. The Panel recommends that as a first step towards a more transparent and systematicpriority setting process, CIFOR needs to formally document its current practice betterby developing an integrated framework that consolidates the steps followed atCIFOR for exclusion and inclusion of projects, giving a full description of criteria,quantitative or qualitative scoring and aggregation methods used. [5.2.2]
3. The Panel recommends that CIFOR review its resource allocation processes in orderto use objective information to support the rationale for decisions on quantitativeallocations of its funds between Programmes and regions, and ensure consistency inresource allocations with the Center’s approved strategic priorities and related BOTdecisions. [5.2.2]
4. The Panel recommends that the Programme objectives be refined jointly rather thanindividually, in full consultation with major stakeholders and staff, in order tominimize duplication and use effective mechanisms and incentives to enhancesynergies among the Programmes. [5.1.4]
5. The Panel recommends that CIFOR’s Programmes and Projects, in their diagnosis, design and implementation, increase attention to gender, especially in regard to poverty alleviation. [5.1.4]

The quality and relevance of the science undertaken

6. The Panel recommends that in the absence of rigorous technical quality review of research proposals by donor or grant agencies, appropriate peer reviews of all proposals/study plans be undertaken prior to approval by Programme Directors. [5.2.3]
7. The Panel recommends that CIFOR establish a policy and develop protocols for research data quality control and assurance to be applied to all of its field research projects. [5.2.3]
8. The Panel recommends that Programme Directors and scientists be strongly encouraged that, of the research publication effort aimed at the global forest science community, a greater share be focused on higher-impact refereed journals, rather than publishing in lower impact and non-refereed journals. [5.2.4]

The effectiveness and efficiency of management, including the mechanisms and processes for ensuring quality

9. The Panel recommends that CIFOR’s Board adjust its procedures as necessary to ensure that its Finance and Audit Committee can carefully review the audited financial statements with the External Auditor before consideration by the full Board. The Panel further recommends that the Board actively seek to add to its membership someone with substantial accounting and financial management expertise. [6.1.1]
10. The Panel recommends that in accordance with its Capacity Building Strategy, CIFOR prepare monitoring and evaluation guides for measuring the effectiveness and impact of its capacity building activities, improve capacity building management processes, and that Senior Management increase their commitment to capacity building. [5.3]
11. The Panel recommends that an internal policy be developed that includes incentives and opportunities to strengthen capacity of its own researchers and support staff. [6.4.2]
12. The Panel recommends that CIFOR become more proactive in identifying strong women candidates for future staff vacancies. [6.4.2]
13. The Panel recommends that CIFOR develop a policy and clear standards regarding ownership and archiving of research data. The Panel further recommends that CIFOR establish an institutional records management system. [6.3.5]
14. The Panel recommends that CIFOR work with other CGIAR Centers, in consultation with the Science Council, to take appropriate measures to institute appropriate modalities for a predictable funding environment for Centers. [4.4 and 6.2.1]

Regionalization

15. The Panel strongly recommends a further clarification of the objectives of the Regional Offices, the respective roles of Regional Coordinators and Programme Directors, and an effort towards harmonization of Programme objectives and regional strategies. The Panel further recommends that the Regional Coordinators have requisite involvement and roles, be closely involved in major work processes and information flows, and have adequate authority and resources, to enable them to fulfill their Terms of Reference. [4.2.2.3 and 6.3.4]
16. The Panel recommends that CIFOR proactively monitor and evaluate the progress of the regionalization process in order to avoid conflicts among Regional Coordinators, Programme Directors, and regionally based staff, and to further assess the feasibility of establishing and maintaining the planned number of Regional Offices. [4.2.2.3]

The accomplishments and impact of the Center’s research and related activities

17. The Panel recommends that CIFOR devote more effort in its project and strategic planning to clearly identify and assess impact pathways in ways that are more closely linked to the CGIAR poverty priority and its own objectives. [4.2.5]

Major suggestions

1. The Panel suggests that the entire Management Team work together on a “prestrategy” package to be delivered to the incoming Director General. [6.3.7]
2. The Panel suggests that CIFOR continue to address priority setting in a more comprehensive manner, that includes mapping and prioritizing problems and transforming them into research objectives; identifying and prioritizing target groups and stakeholders; and identifying critical assumptions for success. [4.3]
3. The Panel suggests that CIFOR invest more in improving its current definition and mapping of pathways to better define milestones and intermediate outcomes for improved monitoring and evaluation of progress towards achieving intended impacts. [4.2.5]
4. The Panel suggests that CIFOR continue to sharpen its focus on outcomes and impact and invest in generating information on selected impact indicators that measure changes in livelihoods of forest dependent people, changes in forest management practices and land use patterns in target countries and regions. [5.2.4]
5. The Panel suggests that the GOV Programme revisit and prioritize its research activities based on its goal and the activities’ potential impact on poverty alleviation and the Programme’s comparative advantages. [5.1.2]
6. The Panel suggests that with its regionalization, CIFOR’s current capacity building strategy be revisited to include an appropriate role for Regional Offices in current and future capacity building activities. [5.3]
7. The Panel suggests that CIFOR continue to engage in partnerships for developmentprojects in which they can play their appropriate role as providers of high qualityscientific and technical information to development projects consistent with CIFOR’smandate and International Public Goods obligation. [3.2.3 and 4.4]
8. The Panel suggests that CIFOR’s Board review the Term of Reference for its Financeand Audit Committee (FAC) with a view to align them with the model AuditCommittee Terms of Reference contained in the CGIAR best practice guide. ThePanel also suggests that the FAC discuss the External Auditor’s work plan in moredepth and specify, where necessary, the areas/issues it wishes the External Auditor toexplore. Further, the Panel suggests that the FAC introduce, as a regular agenda item,a closed session with the Internal Auditor without the presence of Management,similar to the closed session it currently holds with the External Auditor. [6.1.1]
9. The Panel suggests that CIFOR’s Board take whatever steps are necessary to ensurethat the risk management policy reflects its own collective, carefully consideredjudgement, and that a mechanism be established for regular discussion of riskmanagement issues at the full Board level. [6.1.1]
10. The Panel suggests that, when assessing collaborative processing or shared servicesaimed at cost reduction, CIFOR Management consider carefully the investment it hasbeen prepared to accept for high-quality services and effective controls.Compromising either of these could lead to false economies. [6.4.1]
11. The Panel suggests that CIFOR, WorldFish and IWMI continue to work together tobetter manage their cooperative services (e.g., a joint project on the future of researchlibraries and impact assessment). [3.2.3]
12. The Panel suggests that CIFOR and ICRAF move forward in implementing a strongeralliance as described in the joint paper: “ICRAF and CIFOR: Building on PastExperience for a Stronger Alliance” (Oct. 2005). [3.2.3]
13. The Panel suggests that CIFOR make more extensive and strategic use of CenterCommissioned External Reviews (CCERs). [6.3.3]
14. The Panel suggests that the 10-year rule for staff appointments be retained, but that itmust continue to have enough flexibility to accommodate exceptional cases and tomake clear that it is not an ironclad inevitability. [6.4.2]
15. The Panel suggests that CIFOR revive its work towards full implementation of theinclusive-workplace approach. [6.4.2]
16. The Panel suggests that CIFOR’s “Diversity Associates” and Management activelyuse the resources developed by the CGIAR Gender and Diversity team. [6.4.2]
17. The Panel suggests that CIFOR pay particular attention to the following current andemerging issues of special relevance to its future research portfolio: povertyalleviation, globalization, fresh water as a global issue, climate change and itsconsequences, increasing demands from national forest research and extensionservices. [7.2]

Full report:

Report of External Program and Management Review EPMR)

CIFOR response to the 2nd External Program and Management Review panel recommendations

³ IPF later became the IFF (Intergovernmental Forum on Forests) and then the UNFF (United Nations Forum on Forest).